"If you go back and you see the technology section of any newspaper, I'm going to guess that a small share of the things that are in the future ever become the present. The journals in science are a bit like that."

"If you go back and you see the technology section of any newspaper, I'm going to guess that a small share of the things that are in the future ever become the present. The journals in science are a bit like that."

In the sidebar.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. We have flying cars, household robots, and look like the Jensons cartoon. Right?

In the 80s the big myth was the paperless office. We are still cutting down trees, but with small tablets we are getting closer to that day.

In "Power Posing: Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance", Cuddy shows that simply holding one's body in expansive, "high-power" poses for as little as two minutes stimulates higher levels of testosterone (the hormone linked to power and dominance in the animal and human worlds) and lower levels of cortisol (the "stress" hormone that can, over time, cause impaired immune functioning, hypertension, and memory loss).

The result? In addition to causing the desired hormonal shift, the power poses led to increased feelings of power and a greater tolerance for risk.

Click to expand...

Controlling for subjects' baseline levels of both hormones, Cuddy and her coauthors found that high-power poses decreased cortisol by about 25 percent and increased testosterone by about 19 percent for both men and women. In contrast, low-power poses increased cortisol about 17 percent and decreased testosterone about 10 percent.

Not surprisingly, high-power posers of both sexes also reported greater feelings of being powerful and in charge. In addition, those in the high-power group were more likely to take the risk of gambling their $2; 86 percent rolled the die in the high-power group as opposed to 60 percent of the low-power posers.

Don't confuse study design and author behaviour with the questions being asked.

If you look at the actual reasons for retracting his view, it was based on further evidence failing to reproduce the work.

The initial study was 'good' - but for the sample size and protocol.
It did not use self-reported outcome measures, but tried to measure actual concrete things.
It measured hormone levels pre and post, as well as actual behaviour on a task.
At the least, if true, some aspect of the 'power pose' affected hormones.

The brain affects the body in real concrete ways. People with lower relative incomes, or who are stressed die earlier.

I have not read the paper, but if in fact they as the coverage mentioned did a test, then as nothing was showing, added more people and re-did it, that is enormously statistically risky, which makes the protocol bad.

The actual fundamental question was good in that looking at all the evidence obtained by looking at this, we can say it probably doesn't happen, when some of the literature before the study suggested it might.

The study design was bad.

The question asked in the PACE trial was a good one 'Does APT/CBT/GET/SMC help CFS patients more'.
The study design was not great - it did not have enough non self-reported outcome measures, but not terrible.

The authors behaviour in modifying the protocol and in sending all participants 'CBT is awesome' leaflet partway through was terrible

PACE would have been enormously positive - if the authors at the time had stuck to their protocol and reported 'there was a small, but statistically insignificant benefit for CBT and GET compared to SMC. There was a small but statistically insignifcant worsening for those on the APT arm. The initial hypothesis of this study was not proved, and further research is needed before recommending any of these therapies.'
Imagine how many thousands (tens of thousands?) of patients would not have had CBT to no avail.